USER PERCEPTION IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

A CASE OF NEW DELHI, INDIA

S. Adiba *1 and A.M. Roshida 2
1,2 Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
(E-mail : adibashafique@gmail.com, b-roshida@utm.my)

ABSTRACT
Public open spaces have always been considered as a focal point of the city as it
describes the distinctive character of public life. There are in-numerous cities which
are known for their public life while few cities are still struggling to satisfy their users
need in public open spaces. Various researchers have defined distinctive factors to
assess public open spaces whereas fewer attempted to analyze through users
perception. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyze the user perception regarding
different attributes of public open space in New Delhi, India in order to validate the
present designed space in respect of users need. Three public open spaces from
New Delhi, India involved in this study, conducted through survey a using
questionnaire. The questionnaire design is based on ‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to
5 which is further analyzed by a basic statistical method. The analysis demonstrates
that user’s satisfaction level is divergent from present design spaces which leads to
ineffective public open space. The result indicates that uses and activities,
microclimate, maintenance and security are below the user’s expectation level while
access and linkages and visual identity are acceptable.

Keywords : Public Open Space, User Perception, Attributes of Public Open Space
Public Space in New Delhi

1.0 INTRODUCTION most populous country, still public open

Many types of research reveal the
immediate condition of Indian public
spaces. Historically, planning of Indian
cities was known for their special privilege
for public life. While, in contemporary
India, one can easily perceive the
ineffectual public life in cities. People didn't
find these spaces interesting, therefore,
they do not want to stay for a longer time.
A huge difference can be seen if we
compare public spaces of India with the
public open spaces of other western
countries. Instead of being, one of the
spaces are somewhere lacking in
captivating public for a longer duration.
This is supported by (Burte, 2008) who
describes that major problem in Indian
cities that nobody is concern about public
life or making public open spaces
sustainable. People are unaware of the
quality of public life in public open spaces
or that they have a right to a sustainable
city. Moreover, (Bhatia, 2015), discussed
the problem in public spaces in Indian
cities. He finds that the absence of uses
and activities, amenities, maintenance and

A 283
security fails to captivate users. Hence,
tends to decrease in social interaction and
public interest. Furthermore (Sharma,
2015) identifies that a lack of social
interaction is the major problem in public
open space. The connection between
people is negligible which is due to the
improper seating arrangement. Moreover,
there were no such designed spaces
where people can gather to perform social
activities.
Several aspects of Indian public open
spaces have been well documented in
various research by the architects and
planners, which defines the issues or
problems, the importance of public
spaces, their parameters, case studies,
innovative ideas for producing sustainable
Indian public space. However, none of
them worked on user perception of
different attributes of public open space.
Thus, the research will attempt to analyze
that up to which level attributes of public
open space are fulfilling the user’s need.
1.1 Literature Review
1.1.1 Public open space
(Debra Efroymson, 2009) define public
open space as a place where anyone can
enter or leave without anyone’s consent.
The place gives the opportunity to interact,
sit alone or in groups and observe people.
It is a place where people can experience
public life. The public open space is one
of the vital element of the city, which has a
great impact on social, cultural, economic
and environmental aspects of the city
(Truong, 2008).
(Jan Gehl, 2003), “public open space is
traditionally used as a marketplace, traffic
space, performing socio-cultural activities
and meeting place in balance, in spite of
the different usage patterns of the city.
Public space is a place where people can
meet and make contact with each other,
exchange information, such as working
experience or economic development. In
addition, a lot of vital activities occur in
public open space: the celebration of
A 284
festivals, socio-cultural activities, pageant,
coronations, etc”.
1.1.2 Attributes of public open space
There are enormous literature reviews
who defines the factors of public open
space whereas, few authors described the
parameters to study and make public
spaces according to user perception. Each
of the mentioned approaches develops
and identifies its own set of key factors
which play a significant role in ensuring
public open space’s success in terms of
user perception. In primarily literature
reviews, the five most remarkable work
with appropriate approaches are selected
in order to formulate the determinants of
public open space.
Therefore, as mentioned in (table 1), the
derived parameters of public open spaces
are accessibility and linkages; uses and
activities; visual image; microclimate;
maintenance and security
1.1.3 User perception in public open
space
(Lemberg, 2010) posits perception as a
cognitive process having a set of detection
and interpretation of sensory information.
(Lemberg, 2010) perception could be
defined as how person sense, process as
well as react to the gathered information in
a surrounding environment. This process
is governed by both, biological as well as
socio-cultural aspect. Firstly, human
receptors like skin, ear, nose, eye, etc.,
receive the incoming stimuli and react to it
accordingly over which socio-cultural
aspects derive meaning and information.
(Addis, Roberts, & Schacter, 2011)
described perception as the process of
arranging, recognizing and interpretation
information of sensory organ which
represents and understand the
environment.
(Ziesel, 2006) asserted that it is important
to know that users first enquire the space
then perceive, use and experience the
amenities provided in public open space.
The variability between users and
designers outlook were mentioned by
several times (Proshansky, 1972;
Wandersman, 1979). Furthermore,
(Bratina Jurkovič, 2014), mentioned the
importance of this correlation, planners
and researchers which disregards the user
perception and their opinion.
(Francis, 1998; Jacobs, 1961) described
the distinctive perspective of public open
space of planners and users. Further,
they had given more emphasis on how
individual perceive and use the space.
While,(Kyttä, 2002) proclaims that it is
important to draw a relationship between
urban parks (public open space ) and user
perception. The measure of public open
space success could be measured by how
people perceive and use space.
Furthermore, (Jacobs, 1961) described
that, before the design of public open
space, it is important to investigate the
user’s perception.

Table 1 Showing factors of public open space extracted from literature review
Psychogeogra Project For
True Urbanism Design Guidelines
phical Public Spaces Gehl Architects
Approach „Making For Urban Open Derived
Approach Approach Approach– Gehl
Cities Livable“ - Space – Marcus, Approach
– Janicijevic Based On (2004)
Lennard (2004) Francis (1998)
(2009) Whyte (1987)

Uses & Attractions Uses & activities Community Uses & activities Uses & activities
activities and Festivals, Mixed Seating, Food an
Tourist value, Destinations use eating, Program
Sociability

Access & Access Accessibility.Park Accessibility and Circulation Access

linkages ing,Paving,Traffic transfer
Security

Comfort Amenities, Urban elements Urban elements , Urban elements,

Flexible Aesthetic quality Outdoor cafes & Amenities
Design restaurants

Image Image and Facades, Access Image / Visual Complexity, Visual image
Identity and mobility, DNA,Human scale Size, Boundaries and identity
Edge, Views and
vistas, Human
scale

Management Aesthetic quality Maintenance Maintenance

and
management

Reaching Out Proximity and Compact urban Circulation, Linkage

Like an connection fabric Information and
Octopus • Signs
Inner Square
& Outer
Square

Seasonal Climate/Night Microclimate Microclimate

Strategy situation

A 285
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Description of Study Area
The author has selected three public open
spaces of New Delhi, which are located in
South Delhi for the study area. In order to
analyze user perception in public open
spaces, it is important that selected site
should be from the same city and of same
size so that the character of the city does
not change and it will easy to relate.
Moreover, to get a varied response to
distinguish design spaces, public open
spaces should also have different context
as well as spatial organization.
Figure 1 Delhi map showing location of
three selected sites (source:
www.googlemap.com)
Figure 2 Plan of selected sites (New friends colony, Saket and Janakpuri) (Source: by
author)
A 286
Thus, on the basis of formulated criteria, the
author has selected public open spaces of
the district centre of New friends colony,
Janakpuri and Saket. Being a part of the
district centre, these public open spaces are
surrounded by hotels, restaurant, offices,
commercials areas which cater to a diverse
population.
2.2 Data Collection - A Selection of
Respondents
This research is univariate research, which
consist only one variable. The process of
data collection unfolds in two part. Firstly,
primary observation has been done in order
to get a basic idea of selected public open
space while in the second part,
questionnaire survey has been done to
examine the user perception. Before
starting the survey, a pilot study consisting
of 20 samples has been carried out to
ensure the validity of the questionnaire and
for what they intended to measure.
2.3 Sample size
The aim of the paper is to examine the user
perception on different attributes of public
open space, thus, the sample should be
almost equal in terms of gender and age.
Therefore, to get such samples, non-
probability method (convenience method)
has been adopted. The determination of the
sample size has been performed by using
(Israel, 1992) table of a sample of
proportions. As South Delhi is having
population more than, 100,000, therefore,
the calculated sample with a confidence
level (95%) and standard error (±10%) is
100. While the researcher has a target to
get 150 sample i.e. 50 samples from each
site.
2.4 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire design is based on
‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to 5“ highly
disagree to highly agree” in order to get
user perception on different attributes of
public open space. (Likert, 1932)
elaborated the use of quantifiable scales for
investigating information about non-
mathematical statements like behavioral
and attitudinal research including users
perception and satisfaction. The construct
of questions are divided into five parts and
in each construct, similar questions were
asked in order to check the internal
consistency of answers (Likert, 1932). The
survey involved a set of 36 questionnaires
asking 50 users from each public open
space. Thus, the total number of a
questionnaire that has been returned is 150
2.5 Data Analysis
The questionnaires were designed to
facilitate data collection and capture the
user’s perception regarding different
attributes of public open space. After data
collection, it is important to check the
reliability of each construct. The
Cronbach’s Alpha value was used to
examine the reliability of answers through
internal consistency for each factor.
According to (Vaus, 2002) the value of 0.3
and above is used as minimum value for
unidimensional scale, whereas if alpha
value is 0.6 and above are considered as
reliable An item-to-scale value of 0.3 and
above was used as the minimum value for
a unidimensional scale (Vaus, 2002), while
the scale was considered reliable if the
alpha value was 0.6 and above (Devellis,
1991).
A 287
The result of analyses data demonstrates
that all the designed construct has achieved
the required alpha value which is 0.60. The
construct of accessibility and linkages are
divided into three parts i.e. vehicular
circulation = 0.87, pedestrian system = 0.89
and public transport system = 0.90. For the
construct of uses and activities, visual
image, microclimate and maintenance and
security are 0.82, 0.90, 0.85, 0.80
respectively ( table 2 ). Further, univariate
statical tools have been used to determine
the answer to each question. Mean of each
question from all the 150 respondents has
been calculated, followed by the variance
and standard deviation of each attribute of
public open space shown in (table 3).
3.0 MAIN RESULTS
The survey has been conducted three
different public open space in New Delhi,
India, in order to assess the perception of
users regarding the present condition of
public open spaces. The study is
quantitative in nature using a questionnaire.
The survey involved asking 50 users from
each public open space to answer a set of
36 questionnaire that was administered
using face to face questionnaire. Thus, the
total number of a questionnaire that has
been returned is 150. The questionnaire
has been divided into 5 different part having
questions of different attributes of public
open space. Moreover, the questionnaire
design is based on ‘Likert scale’ ranging
from 1 to 5 which is further analyzed by a
basic statistical method. The outcomes
reveal that users are highly unsatisfied with
the microclimate having (SD- 0.31), while
uses and activities, maintenance and
security comes under unsatisfied category
with (SD- 0.74 and 0.55) respectively.
However, a visual image is quite closer to a
neutral level, having a maximum level of
(SD-0.86). Further, accessibility and
linkages are quite closer to their satisfaction
level with (SD- 0.66) shown in (graph 1).
 Table 2 Showing results of reliability of different attributes of public open space

Table 3 Showing mean, variance and 4.0 CONCLUSION

standard deviation of different attributes of
public open space
The study concludes the user perception
regarding the present condition of the public
open space of New Delhi, India. In order to
captivate people for a longer duration,
public open space should have distinctive
uses and activities and urban elements
should respect the present microclimate.
These two parameters of public open space
are consider as magnets for attracting
people. Besides that, more emphasis
should be given to maintenance as well as
insecure areas should be avoided. During
case study, it can be easily observed that

A 288
dark areas and untidy spaces are hardly
visited by the people. Users consider these
spaces as an insecure area, thus they avoid
to pass through from these areas. As a
conclusion, uses and activities,
GRAPH 1 Graph showing the percentage of satisfaction level of user in terms of different
factors of public open space with standard deviation of their response in each attribute
5.0 REFERENCES
Addis, D. R., Roberts, R. P., & Schacter, D. L. (2011).
Age-related neural changes in 666
autobiographical remembering and imagining.
Neuropsychology, 49(13), 3656-3669.
Bratina Jurkovič, N. (2014). Perception, experience
and the use of public urban spaces by residents
of urban neighborhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1).
Debra Efroymson, T. T. K. T. H., Pham Thu Ha. (2009).
Public Spaces: How They Humanize Cities.
Dhaka: HealthBridge - WBB Trust.
Devellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and
Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Francis, C. C. M. C. (1998). People Places: Design
Guidlines for Urban Open Space (2nd ed.). New
Jersey, United States: John Wiley and Sons.
Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size.
Retrieved from
Jacobs, J. (1961). Death and life of great american
cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Jan Gehl, L. G. (2003). New City Spaces. Copenhagen:
Danish Architectural Press.
Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children's
environments in the context of cities, small
towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and
A 289
microclimate, maintenance and security fail
to fulfill the users need. However, access
and mobility, visual identity is acceptable
but not up to the mark.
Belarus. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
22(1), 109-123.
Lemberg, D. (2010). Environmental perception.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of
Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1-
55.
Proshansky, H. M. (1972). Methodology in
Environmental Psychology: Problems and
Issues. Human Factors, 14(5), 451-460.
Truong, V. (2008). Sydney City’s Public Open Spaces.
(unpublished masters thesis), University of New
South Wales,, Australia.
Vaus, D. D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research.
London: Routledge.
andersman, A. (1979). User Participation in Planning
Environments: A Conceptual Framework.
Eenvironmnet and behavioue, 11(2), 185-208.
Ziesel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design:
Environment/behavior/neuroscience in
architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning:
W. W. Norton.